Ron Paul's New Primary Goal Is "Internet Freedom" 948
Charliemopps writes "Ron and Rand Paul are shifting the central focus of their family's libertarian crusade to a new cause: Internet Freedom. From the article: 'Kentucky senator Rand and his father Ron Paul, who has not yet formally conceded the Republican presidential nomination, will throw their weight behind a new online manifesto set to be released today by the Paul-founded Campaign for Liberty. The new push, Paul aides say, will in some ways displace what has been their movement's long-running top priority, shutting down the Federal Reserve Bank. The move is an attempt to stake a libertarian claim to a central public issue of the next decade, and to move from the esoteric terrain of high finance to the everyday world of cable modems and Facebook.' This seems like welcome news to me. Let's see if they can get more traction here than they did with the Fed."
Re:So what? (Score:1, Interesting)
(and a lot of nutjob ideas in between)
Citation needed
First thing... (Score:3, Interesting)
I made a contribution to one of Ron's 2008 "money bombs." From that simple action, I started getting spam from Ron, the Campaign for Liberty, the Rand Paul campaign, and state campaigns. All with "no one's listening" return addresses.
Somehow, this move reeks of opportunism - they have not shown any real understanding of Internet privacy, and certainly haven't "walked the walk."
Welcome to GovCorp (Score:5, Interesting)
From reading the article, it sounds like the Pauls are more afraid of the government than corporations, which is a mistake IMHO. Eisenhower talked of the Military-Industrial complex. It's all slowly merging into one giant GovCorp, where the politicians and top corporate executives entrench themselves further and further, scratching each other's backs.
There's the concept of "Creative Destruction." The working classes are well acquainted with it. The problem is that where it's needed most, at the top of the political system and in financial sectors, it's almost completely prevented from occurring.
The Economist had an interesting article entitled "The question of extractive elites." [economist.com]
From that article: "In an extractive economy, such as the Belgian Congo and its successor state, Zaire, a narrow elite seizes power and uses its control of resources to prevent social change... Much of current economic policy seems to be driven by the need to prop up banks, whether it is record-low interest rates across the developed world or the recent provision of virtually unlimited liquidity by the once-staid European Central Bank. The long-term effects of these policies, which may be hard to reverse, are difficult to assess."
who's internet freedom? (Score:5, Interesting)
the individual's?
or freedom like this?:
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/07/04/1538201/verizon-claims-net-neutrality-violates-their-free-speech-rights [slashdot.org]
the problem the pauls and libertarian fundamentalists like them have is they are incredibly naive about what small government really means: a power vacuum that is filled by corporations. at least with our deeply flawed government, there is actually a pretense that it is supposed to stand for our individual freedoms, and some means of recourse
weaken our government, and you are left with monopolies and oligarchies who are happy to trample on our freedoms in the name of their "freedom", and no recourse whatsoever
oh yeah, you can take your business to a competitor, because without regulation the three dominant players aren't colluding and squashing all real competition
oh yeah, you can sue them in court. like you have 6 months and $100,000 and you lose anyway because they can just wear you down with their legion of lawyer goons
give it up, randroids
Re:are you new here? (Score:4, Interesting)
This is not true. Moreover, everyone on Slashdot knows that if you begin your post with "I know I'll get modded down for saying this, but..." you will in fact get modded up.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:So what? (Score:5, Interesting)
The Supreme Court elected W as our president.
Re:are you new here? (Score:5, Interesting)
I`d rather be a doctor than a representative, regardless of how few or many can be of either.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't expect /. to suddenly fill with voluntaryists, libertarians, or (Ron) Paulbots
Funny, that's exactly what I have come to expect of /. when an article like this gets posted. And a surprising number of them suddenly seem to have mod points.
By way of example, he opposes state licensing of professionals and the state control of the medical industry. He wants you to have more avenues to take care of yourself and even stating in one of the GOP debates he would legalize alternative medicine.
WTF? So, how exactly can a patient be assured that a medical practitioner is competent? Or for that matter, any other agent in society whose lack of competence can be a threat to the public? (Such as car-drivers.)
And by the way, alternative medicine already is legal. Whether it actually is worth a damn is another discussion.
Likely, you want to be free from making medical decisions and have it all predetermined by a panel of experts laying out your approved and legal options.
Like, oh say, health-insurance companies?
So much wrong in there (Score:5, Interesting)
I can't correct it all right now...
I personally disagree with homosexuality, but even I can see the change has been occurring since long before Obama reached office.
There was a clear inflection point in polls though when Obama publicly stated his support for gay marriage.
Obama has had 3.5 years to do something and the unemployment rate has not only EXCEEDED the HIGHEST he said it would go, it has STAYED there for a long long time.
We've been doing doing about a million jobs a month better lately than the economy he took over in 2009. As economists know, spending is what pulls an economy out of a recession. You can clearly see when the stimulus worked in the unemployment numbers, but Congress blocked the jobs bill and has forced austerity, which is a drag on the economy.
How much voter fraud do we have in this country?
Almost none. Well, there was that O'Keefe guy. Got any others?
Re:are you new here? (Score:4, Interesting)
Sorry, but I also disagree with you. There is small but vocal group of libertarians on Slashdot and an overlapping vocal group of Ron Paul supporters but I'm convinced from observation that they are both small minorities. They are, perhaps, larger in comparison to what you would find on other sites with different demographics but Ron Paul supporters are a definitely a minority of Slashdot posters.
The pro-Ron Paul group's voice is magnified because they tend toward boorish krankerism which means they never shut up about their dear leader, but you should be careful to not confuse a small but loud group with a large group.
Re:You are so, so wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
What does it even mean to "agree/disagree" with a thing that happens? I hear people say that a lot, do they really mean "disapprove"? Agreement is for propositions. It makes sense to say "I disagree that homosexuality occurs in 5-10% of the population" or that "I disagree that homosexuality is a choice" or that "I disagree that homosexuality will not cause the collapse of civil society". Those are at least well formed ideas. Saying "I disagree with homosexuality" is a lot like saying "I disagree with poetry". What does that even mean?